Sunday, October 31, 2010

Caption: The U.S.S. North Carolina, the lead battleship of her class, being fitted out at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, in April, 1941. This vessel, along with hundreds of other warships, cargo vessels, and their equipment and supplies are among the many reasons that the United States' economy recovered at the start of World War II.

If this weren't David Broder writing this, I'd be thinking it was some form of satire:

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I don't know what's more disturbing about this editorial, that it's obvious warmongering for the sake of economic and political gain, or that Broder has absolutely no understanding of what made World War II so prosperous for the U.S.

The first concern is an obvious one, I think, because anyone who has ever examined how WWII went realizes that it wasn't a good time for the economies of Great Britain, Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union. It was catastrophic for Germany and Japan, and to some degree both the United Kingdom and Russia are still recovering. All of them lost most of a generation of young men, and quite a few cities and civilian casualties. War doesn't always go well for its participants.

Caption: B-24 bombers being built for WWII in a plant built for WWII production, which was one of the largest in the world at the time. Perhaps nothing symbolizes the economic effort of WWII more than pictures like this one.

The second concern is only slightly more subtle, really. The United States profited from the war by producing war machinery on an unprecedented scale. Between 1938 and 1942 we laid down twenty aircraft carriers, a dozen battleships, and scores of escort ships. We built hundreds of auxiliary and cargo ships. We built factories that built a hundred thousand aircraft, and countless tanks and military vehicles, not to mention the guns they carried and the ammunition they used. Not only did we outfit our own armed forces with this equipment, making them the strongest and largest in the world at the time, but we also helped supply a number of our allies with aircraft and military vehicles. We weren't called the Arsenal of Democracy for nothing.

Nothing even remotely like that kind of war production will be needed in a battle with Iran.

People like David Broder, who are neither inclined nor forced to understand the issues they pontificate about, are dangerous when they are given a megaphone by the news organizations of this country. Unfortunately, they seem to be the rule rather than the exception, at least in DC.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

This one is surprising, given Jerome Armstrong's stolid support of the Democratic Party until this election cycle:

I've ended my hyper-partisan allegiance to the Democratic Party. In moving beyond the past decade's partisan affair with Democrats, I am ready for a real revolution to happen in this country.

It has got to happen over the next two years, and its going to take progressives, libertarians, tea partiers, coffee partiers, conservatives... everyone that is not part of the problem (the financial/political/military elite). Get radical, first by moving beyond attachment to a single party or a political identity. Radicalize them both, go independent; whatever, and if that's not you too, then get out of the way.
...
It's quite liberating, actually. We'll see where it goes next.

Of the two authors who wrote Crashing The Gate, I always thought that Jerome was the smart one. I think he's proving it by being the first to drop his allegiance to the Democratic Party. As he explains in a comment at that article, this didn't come out of nowhere, he lists Ron Paul, Howard Dean, and Ralph Nader as being politicians he's supported in the past. All were, if not third party candidates, at least insurgents within their own.

Still, it's quite a turnabout he's been through this year. In contrast to the never-ending parade of people who have simply ignored all the failures of the DC Democrats these last few years, Jerome Armstrong has been honest about pointing them out, and he's now reached the obvious conclusion: politics aren't working as they should be. Right now, there's no party that even pretends to speak on behalf of ordinary Americans. We are left to choose which spokesmodels we find more attractive. That's hardly a sustainable model for government.

I don't know what the solution is, but as Jerome notes, it needs to happen soon.

While checking the usual blogs this morning, I ran across this at Dana Hunter's place:

This has been a horrible month. First Holly, now my parents' cat Jimmy.

Jimmy seemed everlasting. He married into the family when my stepmother and father tied the knot. I could always count on that enormous bundle of orange tabby sacked out on his favorite blankie on the sofa when I went home. There was a time when he got so fat he seemed to be competing with Garfield, but then the new kitten came home and bits of Jimmy just melted away, like winding a clock back to the days when he was slim, trim, and always ready for a good chase sequence.

I met Jimmy on our trip through Arizona last year. As you can see from this picture:

Image credit: Cujo359

Jimmy was always interested in the humans who were in his house. In the photo he was in his favorite spot - on the couch between his two humans, Dana's parents. Among the cats in that house, Jimmy was the calm one. While one of their other cats seemed fascinated by my shoelaces, Jimmy was the only one who was never shy about hanging out with Dana or me.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

This is a picture of Tim Profitt, the guy who felt the need to "restrain" a young woman who was protesting a Rand Paul campaign event by stepping on her head, and Rand Paul. He must be twice the size of the woman he stepped on, who reportedly was already restrained by another Paul campaign worker. Yet somehow, he feels the need to ask the woman for an apology:

"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt said. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

"She's a professional at what she does," Profitt added, "and I think when" all the facts come out, I think people will see that she was the one that initiated the whole thing."

If anyone ever needs a picture to go along with the phrase "pathetic little man", the picture of this guy towering over the politician he used to volunteer for would be a good choice.

When you're caught in a situation like this, hurting someone half your size in what turns out to be an unnecessary use of force, I think the best thing to do is say you're sorry she's hurt and hope she recovers. Leave all the excuse making for if the thing makes it to court.

Which is true as far as it goes. What bothers me is that nowhere in that article does he recognize the obvious realities I mentioned in that first link, which are that things move rightward because it's where the money is, and because conservatives these days don't let their politicians get away with heresy, whereas progressives let theirs do it all the time.

Count Reich's notion as another reason, but not the most important. Count his failure to acknowledge those other points as a problem Democratic pundits need to get over.

Frank Caprio's campaign last week said he would welcome the president's endorsement. But on Monday, the same day Obama was set to make his first visit to Rhode Island as president and a day after the White House said Obama would not endorse anyone, Caprio angrily told WPRO-AM that Obama can "take his endorsement and really shove it."

If there's any more proof needed that Barack Obama doesn't give a damn about his own party's future, then this would be it. After wasting time and effort supporting Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas U.S. Senate primary over the more electable Bill Halter, and supporting Arlen Specter over Joe Sestak in the PA U.S. Senate primary, and potentially screwing the Democrats' chances of retaining that seat as well, this should be the third strike that wakes up the party leadership.

Fat chance that will happen, but there has to be some point at which even they will see the light.

UPDATE: I could probably add pissing off and pissing on his base to the list of things Obama's done to ruin the Democratic Party, but so many other Democrats have cooperated there that it's hard to think of that as anything but a group effort.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Caption: San Francisco relief pitcher Bryan Wilson strikes out Phillies first baseman Ryan Howard to end the National League Championship Series (NLCS).

Image credit: Screenshot of Fox Sports broadcast by Cujo359

The San Francisco Giants won the National League pennant tonight, beating the Philadelphia Phillies 3 - 2. This has been an exciting series, with all the games decided by a run or two. Neither team has anything to be ashamed of.

The Phillies' power hitters were largely ineffective during the series, as they had been during much of the season. For the Phils to come back next year, it seems obvious that they'll have to do something to correct that. If it weren't for the excellent pitching, this series might have ended two games ago.

While it's sad for a Phillies fan, San Francisco's win means that they will play the Texas Rangers in the World Series. Neither team has been to the Series lately, in fact, I don't remember the Rangers ever being there. So, whoever wins this year, baseball fans can't yawn and say "Again?"

Congratulations to the Giants, and thanks to the Phillies for a great series.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Of course, one could probably imagine a conspiracy by a secret international cabal of evil doers to explain away all those objections, but at least for a few people that might prove to be more trouble than it's worth.

I added all those links. They're links to things I've written over the years. If you wonder why I don't write much on this subject lately, spend some time reading what I've written already. It's a depressing thing to contemplate, because there are so many people who still don't get it.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Just to review, because it seems that occasionally major party candidates for the U.S. Senate forget this, this is where the Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. In Article 6, it says:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These are the only places that religion is mentioned in the entire document. Further, the Fourteenth Amendment explains that this rule applies to how the government treats everyone who is an American citizen:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It should be pretty obvious, to anyone who ever studied elementary logic at least, that the people who wrote that document didn't want any religion in charge of the government. Yes, that means even if that religion happens to be the majority religion. Whether that class of people includes any candidates running for the United States Senate these days is an open question, but whether the Constitution mandates separation of church and state is not.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

xkcd explains what it's like to be a computer engineer talking to tech support at some ISPs:

Image credit: xkcd

There are others, like the one I'm with now, who consistently get it right, but I think if you depend on your Internet connection you should avoid the ones whose tech support departments only work from scripts.

Friday, October 15, 2010

As I've mentioned a time or two, I'm not interested all that much in watching political debates. I'm also not interested in most post-debate analysis. Steve Benen puts his finger on part of the reason in this quote:

But, really, what do these debate watchers expect? Was there any real chance that Sharron Angle would take the stage last night, pull out a machine gun, and start threatening to kill gay immigrants who used to work for ACORN?

We seem to have developed a depressing checklist: (a) did the candidate show up; (b) did the candidate speak English; (c) did the candidate remember the talking points drilled into his/her head by handlers from Washington; (d) did the candidate repeat the poll-tested zinger; (e) did the candidate avoid some kind of mental breakdown.

If most of the list gets a check mark, then the candidate is necessarily deemed credible enough for service.

We seem to live in a political environment filled with such things. I don't know what the solution is, because I'm not even sure when that era began. It was certainly in full force by the time Ronald Reagan was elected President. The man could say utter nonsense and be taken seriously by half of the country. Some criticism of his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, was equally vacuous. So, it's clearly been a fact of life for as long as I've been adult enough to understand logic.

Still, it's sad to watch spectacles like this, where that environment is so clearly on display. That's a big part of the reason I don't.

One of the inevitable arguments by progressives against letting Republicans take control of the House of Representatives this fall goes along the lines of "It will make the Democrats go farther right." This has always struck me as a ridiculous argument. Here's an example of why, provided by the putative leader of the Democratic Party:

During our hour together, Obama told me he had no regrets about the broad direction of his presidency. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” He realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works. Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.

The reason those progressives' argument makes no sense to me is that, by their own actions and words, the Democratic leadership have proved again and again that they will move right no matter what. Look at the nonsensical reasons the guy in charge of our government spouts as if they actually make sense. The idea that concentrating the stimulus bill on shovel ready projects didn't save time and money is utter nonsense - anyone who has ever gone through a state or federal contracting process can tell you that. A project that's been approved, awarded, and just lost its funding is a lot further along than one that was just dreamed up last week. Tax cuts versus tax breaks, what the hell does that even mean? The stimulus would have been more effective with no tax breaks at all, if they'd spent the money instead on something even moderately useful.

These guys aren't taking politics to the right because that's where America is going. They're taking politics to the right because that's where the money is. Those big corporations aren't going to drop campaign funds into the campaign coffers of the kind of politician who will watch out for the little guy. Despite blog activism and Act Blue, there's not much money there, and I doubt there will be as long as the income disparity continues as it is in America.

They're also taking politics to the right, as I've pointed out many, many times, because progressives don't demand that their politicians be progressives, where conservatives aren't foolish enough to accept progressivism from their politicians. Politicians will chase the power that can go elsewhere. Progressives don't change their votes - they can always be counted on to vote out of fear of the Other Guys, and any national politician who doesn't know that was probably appointed to his job.

That's enough motivation to pull politics to the right no matter which party wins in November. Until progressives learn to demand better of their politicians, none of that is going to change.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Another example of cluelessness in American politics is this ad by the Democratic National Committee:

How many people do they think are going to be influenced by this ad? Forget that The New York Timeshas disputed the extent of foreign influence in the Chamber of Commerce budget, and let's just focus on what's really important right now.

What's really important right now is that we have 17-plus percent under- and unemployment in this country, our health care system remains unreformed, the banks are getting away with foreclosing on just about anyone who has a mortgage, we are still hip-deep in two ruinous wars, and the Democrats are determined to not do a thing about any of that.

Like the lawyers say, when you have the law on your side, pound on the law. When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts, and when neither is on your side, pound on the table. That poor table must be splinters by now.

I can't dispute this. Based on the crappy employment numbers, one could be excused for thinking that the only jobs available these days entail foreclosing on each other's properties.

As Suzan points out today, the banks knew what they were doing. At least, the smart ones did. They just bribed the government and outspent it in court to escape real justice. And now, as David Dayen points out, foreclosure frauds are just the logical next step in that process:

if you want the nickel summary, read this interview between Ezra Klein and Janet Takavoli:

Ezra Klein: What’s happening here? Why are we suddenly faced with a crisis that wasn’t apparent two weeks ago?
Janet Tavakoli: This is the biggest fraud in the history of the capital markets. And it’s not something that happened last week. It happened when these loans were originated, in some cases years ago. Loans have representations and warranties that have to be met. In the past, you had a certain period of time, 60 to 90 days, where you sort through these loans and, if they’re bad, you kick them back. If the documentation wasn’t correct, you’d kick it back. If you found the incomes of the buyers had been overstated, or the houses had been appraised at twice their worth, you’d kick it back. But that didn’t happen here. And it turned out there were loan files that were missing required documentation. Part of putting the deal together is that the securitization professional, and in this case that’s banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, has to watch for this stuff. It’s called perfecting the security, and it’s not optional.

If you want to boil it down to its essence, that’s what we’re dealing with. The foreclosure fraud right now is covering up the fraud at the point of origination which Takavoli explains here. And contra Klein, this is something that the economy had to deal with at one point or another, since there’s so much money tied up in this[.]

Friday, October 8, 2010

I'd make more of the unemployment numbers that came out today, but plenty of folks have already. Here's David Dayen:

The numbers, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: the economy lost 95,000 jobs in September, with the topline unemployment rate unchanged at 9.6%. 77,000 of those losses came from reductions at the 2010 US Census, so taking that out of the equation you’re still at -18,000. The private sector gained 64,000 jobs, the ninth straight month of private-sector gains. But government and public-sector jobs outside the Census also crashed, a victim of continued rolling budget cuts, mostly in education. That has furthered the jobs crisis.

September was the 17th consecutive month of unemployment that equaled or surpassed 9.4 percent, the longest stretch since the start of monthly figures in 1948.

The report was the last monthly jobs snapshot ahead of the November 2 mid-term elections.

Obama and his Democratic Party needed a strong report to crow about the recovery ahead of the vote, in which opposition Republicans are expected to make strong gains and possibly recapture a majority in one or both chambers of Congress.

I would be surprised, but not shocked, to see the GOP take control of the Senate this year. They have to gain ten seats in the Senate, out of thirty-two that are in play. Even assuming that Joe Lieberman would change sides if it suited him, that still leaves nine races they have to win where they don't have a Republican Senator now. That's a big hurdle.

Still, by screwing up early and often on the economy, and giving people absolutely no reason to think anything better is on the horizon, the Democrats could still manage to make it possible.

Stasis means nothing is changing. What's actually happening is that the economy is deteriorating. Even if there had been no job losses in the public sector, the 64,000 jobs created in the private sector is only about half what’s needed to employ the people entering the work force this month.

So, even when we finally reach Grover Norquist territory, and there are no more government jobs to lose, we’ll still be losing ground. We’re nowhere near there yet, of course.

That’s what you can infer from this report. Things are going to get much worse. That's true no matter which party takes control of Congress this fall. The one in control now is supposed to be the one that watches out for the little guy. They've been screwing us as much as they can. They're going to pay dearly for that this fall, but that isn't going to help us, I'm afraid.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Over at MyDD, Jerome Armstrong pretty much gets what's going to happen the next few years:

When will the Democrats get a grove back? Obama's numbers are likely to get even worse in 2011. We are going to have to see some vicious Democratic primaries that go against the anti-populist sentiment among the DC Democratic establishment. Otherwise, it may not be until 2016, and after Republicans take total control in 2012.

Its a few weeks away from the bloodbath, and I've no reason to look at the blood being spilled on a daily basis.

That final sentence captures part of the reason I'm not much interested in blogging these days. The other part is that I'm really not all that interested in how much blood gets spilled. The DC Democrats have betrayed almost all their natural constituencies in the name of big campaign bucks from the financial, pharmaceutical, and petroleum industries. They left us to twist in the wind while the depression we're now in took hold, only pausing long enough to bail out the banks.

If the Democrats manage to hold onto the House, then they will learn nothing, and will probably lose even bigger in 2012. Either way, things are going to continue as they have the next two years. I've never seen an election where so little mattered. Those are such obvious conclusions that it barely seems worth mentioning, yet there are plenty of folks out there who clearly don't see that.

Those folks should be cheered up by Jane Hamsher's analysis of the upcoming election:

I actually think there is reason to believe the Democrats may do better in the November elections than many believe. Not great, but better than they should have expected at this point. And that’s largely based on factors that aren’t going to show up in the polls.

The short version of that article is that the Republicans have been their own worst enemy. They haven't organized, they've splintered, and they manage to say something stupid or offensive to moderates and just about anyone who isn't a religious nutcase or a racist every time they open their mouths.

I still think the Democrats will lose the House this year. It just may not be by a phenomenal margin. Don't forget, the GOP has to pick up 41 seats to take control. That's a lot in any election year.

UPDATE: Just add this thought to the end: It's even possible that the Democrats will manage to retain that House. If that happens, you can pretty well bet that the disaster some folk seem to fear if Republicans come to power actually will happen in 2012, when they GOP takes control of both the White House and Congress.

The Democrats might be savvy enough to pull out a victory here, but they're nowhere near smart enough to change their ways in time for 2012. And that's going to kill them.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

I've been getting caught up on The Daily Show. Here are a couple of the more interesting segments. The first is "professional atheist" Sam Harris discussing the role of science in discussing morality. Awhile back I wrote this about Sam Harris:

I haven't read much of Sam Harris' work. I'm familiar enough with Hitchens to know that the guy is an opinionated jerk. I've read enough of Richard Dawkins, the biologist whom [journalist Chris] Hedges lumps in with these two, to know that he is not.

I can't think of any rational reason that this guy would be called a "militant" atheist, except that he's someone who is clearly willing to acknowledge that he is an atheist, and who is willing to discuss why he is one. That he is widely considered to be some sort of wild-eyed radical strikes me as another example of how moronic our public discourse has become.

Speaking of which, Lewis Black has a few things to say about the state of American public education these days: